~ Richard A. Davis blogging

Monthly Archives: May 2007

Sports people filled nine of the top ten positions in the people list, while politicians filled out much of the bottom of the 75 places. The magazine commented in their media release:

Our top most trusted individuals, a category which ranks 75 well-known New Zealanders, have one common trait – humility – while those at the lower end of the scale are perceived to be motivated by self interest.

It is notable, therefore, the “Bishop” Brian Tamaki is number 75 (below Ahmed Zaoui) and the only religious figure listed by name. “Religious ministers” come at number 26 out of 40 in the professions list – not that high, and sitting between “Tradesmen” and “Financial planners”. Interestingly “Marriage celebrants” come in the top ten, showing that more people are seeing marriage celebration as something that happens increasingly outside the church.

Religion did little better in the Charities section. The highest placed religious charity was Salvation Army at 12 out of 25. In commenting on the results in this section, Reader’s Digest said:

The results send a clear message: Kiwis are less likely to trust charities that have a political, ideological or religious agenda.

It is interesting to note that no other religious figure has a profile to match Tamaki. This is not surprising since he constantly seeks publicity, which is what his profile rests on – not humble Christian loving service his fellow human beings. He is more interested in self-aggrandising publicity stunts. Sadly this is the face of Christianity in New Zealand for those who do not know the Church first-hand. God have mercy.

May 28 saw the opening of The Creation Museum in Kentucky, USA. This is just down the road from Dayton, OH, where I was a few months ago. Sadly it wasn’t open then, but next time I’ll be sure to pop in. It cost $27million to build and it claims to bring the pages of the bible to life. Cool!

I’m on the Presbyterian Church’s environmental taskforce, which has the role to address environmental issues and how the Church can respond at both the Assembly and parish levels. To contribute to that end I’m reengaging with some eco-theological literature.

First on the list is Dorothee SÃ¶lle‘s To Work and To Love: A Theology of Creation. It is a bit dated, being written in 1984, notably before the fall of the Soviet Empire (she praises Yugoslavia). One thing that struck me is her reflection on the absence of the Father God in German theology and the emphasis on Christ, notable in Dietrich Bonhoeffer. She blames this focus on the rejection of the “father” motif given the strong man image in Fascism. The shift to Christ was a reaction of that. I have written about sociomorphism before, this being the idea that the form of our society influences how we view God, but hadn’t thought until now that it might apply to the Trinity. But of course it makes perfect sense that how we view spirits, father and sons will influence how we view the Spirit, Father and Son (to use the traditional language of the Trinity).

But where is the Holy Spirit in refocus on Christ? It doesn’t appear, with the re-emergence of Trinity being a more recent phenomenon. Without the Spirit Soelle struggles with how God, who is supposed to be transcendent relates to the world. This is a weakness of the book and a strength of more recent trinitarian theologies of creation, where the full Trinity relates to creation, as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer.

In this part I wish to consider personal spirituality and psychology as to why people won’t believe that climate change is happening.

One interesting remark I overheard at work recently was someone saying that humans are too insignificant to cause climate change. Sure, we are only one species, but since Hiroshima there should be no doubt that humans have the power for massive destruction – nuclear winter anyone? From a biblical perspective we hear many times that creation is groaning due to the sins of mankind, so this view shouldn’t be surprising to Christians. The view that humans couldn’t possible cause so much harm is naive but at a deeper level it displays perhaps a paradoxical view of humanity. On the one hand people are insignificant and not powerful enough to achieve much. As individuals this may be the case, but together (especially in the form of the state) we form a large and powerful species with the ability to radically transform the landscape and climate (such as through deforestation). On the other hand, such an assessment of humanity, claims to know that we cannot cause so much harm – why so sure? That is not humble but very arrogant.

The opposite view to that above could be that we are too little to change the climate for the better. We can make no difference as individuals; it is much easier to believe that there is no climate change, so we don’t have to do anything. Doing something also challenges us and our lifestyle – at least that is the common refrain from critics of denial.

So ultimately the success of any lie does not depend on how well it is packaged or how many experts are wheeled out but whether people want to believe it, whether it reinforces or validates their world view, or whether it makes them feel better. White supremacists want to believe that other races are less intelligent. Muslim extremists want to believe in an international Jewish conspiracy- which is why every Islamic bookshop in the middle east has copies of the odious 100 year old forgery â€œthe Protocols of the Elders of Zionâ€.

And many many intelligent people want to believe that climate change is a myth. Maybe they find it too threatening to their world view. Maybe they are scared by the predictions. Maybe they find the solutions too challenging to the lifestyle they believe they have earned.

The reasons for denial are complex and probably different in each case. In the next paragraph he writes:

There is no doubt in my mind that the key reason why Swindle worked was because it spoke to a very powerful hope that climate change doesnâ€™t actually exist. This is a perilous time for belief- after years of ignoring climate change and hoping it will go away British society is on the end of edge of actually taking it seriously.

What struck me here was the word “hope”. This is essentially a theological word, which expresses one’s longings and greatest commitments. But I would vary the claim made here to be that people hope life continues as it has been. This is an anti-eschatological perspective, where we want life to continue to be as we used to and for history to serve our desires, rather than move toward the kingdom of God – something that will require great revolutionary change.

That people may find addressing climate change threatening is a little surprising since most fixes that politicians are considering don’t really impact on life style of the economy. For example, planting trees out the back and using nuclear energy and energy efficient light bulbs doesn’t challenge our lifestyle, it merely gives it a green tint.

“NEGLIGIBLE”. That’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the cost of limiting long-term global warming would be. “We won’t notice it,” says Simon Retallack, head of climate change at the Institute for Public Policy Research, a UK-based think tank.

The IPCC’s latest report, released on 4 May, says that if stringent measures are taken now to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at between 445 and 535 parts per million (ppm) by 2030, global economic growth will slow by only 0.12 per cent per year. This would mean a total cost of 3 per cent of global GDP. However, James Connaughton of President Bush’s White House Council on Environmental Quality said this would result in a global recession.

So why don’t we do anything about it? Perhaps because to take action requires and, indeed, demonstrates an acknowledgement that climate change is caused by humans. Perhaps the human desire to avoid guilt and responsibility helps to explain why it is that the more evidence there is to show that humans cause climate change the more it is denied, and the more people are willing to believe another explanation.

I’m doing some research into why people don’t believe that climate change is happening or that it is anthropogenic. Aside from my own subjective observations about climate and weather I necessarily reply on what others are telling me about climate changes. Invariably these sources (scientists and politicians) are mediated by the mass media, so apart from the scientists I know personally, I’m somewhat removed from direct knowledge about long-term climate change trends. To accept that climate change is happening requires faith in what you are being told. This faith, by necessity, is based on confidence in the message and the messenger. I believe that therein lies a big problem. So before we accept individual apathy or the ‘consumer society’ as the root cause is worth considering how the issue is being communicated and mediated.

I wonder if public confidence in scientists, politicians and the media is lower than it has been. On a macro view we live in a world were a breakdown of authority is happening. Some would call this post-modernism, the fact that there is no truth any more, so there can be no-one with the truth and no authority. Furthermore, there is good reason why scientists, politicians and the media should not be trusted, since they largely serve big business and private profit rather than the public interest. Naturally there are exceptions, but who can tell who is whom any more, without extensive research.

As with the GE debates of a few years ago, we are finding that the public do not necessarily trust scientists. In some ways they only have themselves to blame. Firstly for their professions becoming increasingly subservient to big business and not working in the best interests on the public. Secondly for lacking ways of communicating their findings to the lay person. When did you last hear about a scientist turn down funding because the project was unethical or not in the public interest?See:

Journalists are committed to balance and objectivity more than the truth. It is my observation that journalists in search of balance have for too long given coverage to the unsubstantiated claims of climate deniers. If someone claimed the Earth was a globe I’m sure they would dig some flat earth society idiot for “balance”.

Over the longer term, to be sure, the general trend in public attitudes has been downward. We reviewed the data in our original report two years ago, but since the early 1980s Americans have come to view the news media as less professional, less accurate, less caring and less moral. Pollster Andrew Kohut has concluded, summarizing the data, that Americans increasingly believe that news organizations act out of their own economic self-interest, and journalists themselves act to advance their own careers.

In our inaugural report, we suggested that the heart of that declining trust was a â€œdisconnectâ€ over motive. Journalists see themselves as acting on the publicâ€™s behalf. The public believes they are either lying or deluding themselves. There was further evidence of that skepticism in 2005. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 75% of Americans believed that news organizations were more concerned with â€œattracting the biggest audience,â€ while only 19% thought they cared more about â€œinforming the public.â€

Our scientists, politicians and media are up for sale. This is not surprising given that we live in a capitalist society. Why should the tools of capitalism be permitted to research, communicate and legislate against the harms of capitalist economy?

But it seems that where the problem lies is not within any of these professions but when they intermingle, as indeed they must. This blog entry ‘Sex up climate talk’ says Arnie makes the shrewd observation that:

even as the science has become increasingly certain, the public (and political) controversy has become greater and greater

The author writes that

The issue in my mind is that climate scientists need to be a little bit more aware of how the media works. Politicians are now acutely aware of the media machine, and most use it as a tool. If climate scientists want the evidence to keep up with the policy spin, they need to play the same game.

But a journalist would write that, wouldn’t they.

Science is also mixed up with politics. If the causes of climate change are tackled straight on then that means politicians need to make laws and regulations to change things, while not upsetting the economy and voters.

I missed the news in the venerable ODT, but caught up today through the Otago Bulletin that the University of Otago has succeeded in raising the money they need to establish a Chair and Centre for Theology and Public Issues Centre. The Bulletin reports:

New Zealandâ€™s first research centre tackling social issues such as poverty, social welfare and the environment from a theological perspective is also soon to be established, thanks to the legacy of a millionaire entrepreneur.

The University has announced that the Howard Paterson Chair in Theology and Public Issues and an associated research centre will be established as part of its Leading Thinkers initiative.

The professorial appointee to the new Chair will direct a centre charged with undertaking and promoting informed theological and ethical analysis of the challenges facing contemporary New Zealand society.

The Chair and Centre for Theology and Public Issues are being made possible through a major gift by the Paterson Charitable Trust and substantial support from the Presbyterian Synod of Otago and Southland, and Gore couple Ian and Annette Tulloch.

The Otago Centre will be based on the long-time Centre for Theology and Public Issues at New College, Edinburgh. It will be interesting to observe how things upfold. Curious to me, from earlier reports, is the proposed inclusion of MSD on the Board. I would have thought that theology’s engagement with the state is the subject of the Centre, not part of its governance. Hopefully the Centre does not become captive to Constantinianism before it makes its first utterance.

Raising the money for the Centre has been a great effort. For while the Centre has been in the making for years, it got the money faster than I thought they would. In their Annual Report to ANZATS for 2005 the Dept said:

The Department has begun the process of establishing a Centre for Theology and Public Issues. It is hoped to establish an endowment, sufficient to appoint a Professorial Director of the Centre in perpetuity. This project has been accepted as part of the Universityâ€™s Advancement Campaign. In April, the Presbyterian Synod of Otago and Southland made a Grant of $150,000 towards the establishment of the Centre. Murray Rae represented the Department at a meeting at the University of Edinburgh in September, when it was decided to establish the Global Network for Public Theology, of which the Department will be a part.

It is also interesting in light my previous posts about the demise of CASI that this Centre will take over some of the functions of that body – with Presbyterian funding. The Church won’t fund CASI properly but finds money for a university centre.

New Zealand has a significant Christian heritage that has played a major role in shaping our national identity. From the bible in our courts, prayer in parliament to our National Anthem, Christian elements are laced throughout our judicial, political and social arrangements. In fact, Christianity affirms the freedoms our Prime Minister is attempting to espouse in terms of religious diversity. However, she should be secure enough to make it very clear to foreign delegates that New Zealand has an established Christian religion

This merely shows he has some appreciation of New Zealand history. But Christendom is over for New Zealand, and we have never had an “established religion”, despite the Anglican Church having pseudo-establishment status.

The tagline for Destiny’s latest website christiannation.org.nz is “New Zealand’s Christian Heritage in Jeopardy”. Ironically Tamaki is actively breaking with our traditions and is actively importing American Christianity wholesale. Furthermore Tamaki doesn’t wish to maintain our traditions but change them radically to better suit his right wing ideology.

Tamaki’s view won’t be popular (will never be?) in a liberal democracy, where liberal ideology predominates. In modernity the nation cannot be Christian – only individuals, who are free to choose their own flavour of faith, as they would an ice cream. The proposed Statement on Religious Diversity, to which Tamaki is reacting, is a classic statement of liberal tolerance and education to create a harmonious society, with all living in peace. This is a liberal illusion, and just as much wishful thinking as a return to Christendom.

The value of an innocent civilian slaughtered by al-Qaeda terrorists on September 11, 2001 to his or her family: $1.8 million.

The value of an innocent civilian slaughtered at Haditha, Iraq, by U.S. Marines: $2,500.

This is all you need to know about American exceptionalism and the state of Christianity in the Empire.

A similar point about the “value” of war dead, depending on whether they are ours or theirs, is made here: ANZAC Day Must Be Opposed – the blog of the protesters I saw at the ANZAC Day service in Wellington. He writes:

You will never see the various wars New Zealand has fought in, and continues to fight in, condemned. The lists of those killed always excludes “the enemy”, for they don’t really count, they are an unpeople; indeed, to humanise “the enemy” would be to expose the murderous foundations upon which the military is premised. You will never see conscientious objectors celebrated as heroes after enduring imprisonment at the hands of the New Zealand State. ANZAC day is a celebration of a murderous and violent institution, the backbone of any State, and a symbolic gesture towards those either forced or duped into murdering at its behest. Nowhere else in society would such actions be celebrated, except, apparently, when perpetrated by the State.